Over the past few days, the following topics attracted our attention:
Tens of Thousands of Britons are Being Arrested for Online Posts
British Banks Have Closed the Accounts of a Far-Left News Site
Full Circle: Car Manufacturers Address EV Concerns With Petrol Engines
Tens of Thousands of Britons are Being Arrested for Online Posts
The UK campaign group Big Brother Watch has published a report has published a report on the state of freedom of expression in the country. It highlights that the authorities have arrested at least 62,199 people over the past five years for ‘offensive’ online communication. Of these, 18,520 were charged and 12,292 were convicted, often simply for viewing a post.
The online regulations carrying the threat of criminal penalties are enforced quite differently from region to region. Some police forces have exercised this power more vigorously than others. For example, Cumbria Police arrested 25.7 people per 10,000 residents over a five-year period – approximately 2.5 times the national average. Neighbouring Northumbria arrested just 1.9 people per 10,000 residents. Sussex Police made 10.7 arrests per charge, while Staffordshire made just 0.2.
Some have been arrested simply for allegedly watching a derogatory video on TikTok, while others for making a speech at a protest. Activists argue that some of the arrests are justified, such as the need to stop threatening messages from partners in cases of domestic violence. On the other hand, the broad scope and vagueness of the law have been accompanied by excessive zeal on the part of the police to apply the rules in everyday interactions. As an example, the report highlights a case where West Midlands Police visited a teenage girl, accusing her of posting a picture of a teacher on TikTok accompanied by negative comments. The girl was required to hand over all her devices to the police and to attend an interview voluntarily. She was threatened with arrest if she refused. What is curious, however, is that the girl had neither created, shared nor even commented on the video. The investigation was later closed without any action being taken, and the police explained that they were ‘investigating alleged malicious communications offences’.
Another absurd case concerns private messages. Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested for complaining in a WhatsApp group chat about their daughter’s primary school. The couple were detained for around 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communication. In the end, they were ordered to pay 20,000 pounds in damages. The third, and perhaps best-known, case involves Lucy Connolly, who was sentenced to a full 31 months in prison for her messages. In July 2024, she had posted a message following the Southport murders – in which a man of Rwandan parentage cold-bloodedly killed three young girls – calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.
Big Brother Watch emphasises that all these cases involve both the political left and the right, although each side believes that it is their freedom of speech that is under the greatest threat. In reality, however, it is everyone’s freedom of expression that is at risk, regardless of their political views. “This slide into illiberalism is not the result of a crackdown by a newly installed dictator. Rather, Britain is sleepwalking into authoritarianism, inch by inch,” the report states. Every government has introduced new restrictions on online speech, which consistently undermine both privacy and anonymity on the internet. Each government has presented this as a solution to the problems arising from the internet and social media. “Quick fixes have been sought in response to real tragedies, instead of addressing their underlying causes. In the long term, this approach will diminish everyone’s freedom,” stated Big Brother Watch.
Toby Young, head of the Free Speech Union, has often helped defend those facing legal proceedings for their words. Young wondered: “Why are the authorities spending so much time policing our tweets when they could be policing our streets? Shoplifting, mobile phone theft and sexual offences are all on the rise, yet the police seem increasingly obsessed with catching thought criminals.” According to Toby Young, arrests for online offences alone have a deeply restrictive effect, despite the fact that only one in five people arrested on these grounds are convicted. “People up and down the country dare not say what they think about a whole range of issues for fear that a couple of plainclothes officers wearing rainbow lanyards will knock on their door at four in the morning.”
Furthermore, developments in the UK suggest that even stricter restrictions are on the cards. The government has announced plans for a social-media ban for under-16s, whilst there are plans to grant them the right to vote and allow them to join the armed forces. The only way the authorities can block children from accessing large parts of the internet is by requiring all around 68 million British users to provide proof of identity. There are also calls to subject virtual private networks to age verification, but these are vital tools for dissidents, whistleblowers and journalists around the world. In any case, such measures are increasingly reminiscent of China’s Great Firewall, rather than Western democracy.
The report also highlights that due to age verification requirements, even works by famous artists, stories about British history, videos from mainstream political parties and much more have been blocked. Many small forums and websites have been forced to close down due to the requirements of the Online Safety Act. Age restrictions are being systematically applied to a much wider range of topics than the law actually requires, and ‘disinformation’ and ‘child protection’ are being used to justify ever-tighter control over online communication. For example, in Reddit communities, discussions about horror films or clips from certain films have been placed behind age restrictions; as have advice on how to support a chemotherapy patient, an alcoholic or a victim of domestic violence; and even specific pieces of music, such as the Moody Blues’ 1986 track ‘Your Wildest Dreams’.
According to Big Brother Watch, freedom of speech in the UK is in desperate need of protection. The laws affecting it should be assessed and reviewed in their entirety, and measures implemented instead that would restore the laws and culture of free speech. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, concluded: “Thousands of people are being arrested for controversial speech, online jokes and non-violent protest. People have even been arrested for holding blank pieces of paper, and urged by the police to take ‘online thinking skills’ courses. Enough is enough.”
British Banks Have Closed the Accounts of a Far-Left News Site
The Canary, a far-left British news website, has been left without its bank accounts. It first claimed in June that Lloyds had stopped providing it with banking services, and now claims it has also lost its Metro Bank account. The Canary has suggested that it fell victim to political forces and noted how major banks were restricting the transactions of organisations and individuals supporting Palestine, reports The Telegraph.
The Canary claims that Lloyds gave no prior warning, no explanation and no opportunity to challenge the decision. Last week, it announced that it had lost access to a second bank account – this time frozen by Metro Bank. Following the freezing of its second bank account, The Canary has stated that it has no choice but to suspend operations, although thewebsite remains operational.
The news site has operated since 2015, actively supporting far-left politics. Co-founder Kerry-Anne Mendoza explained at the time that they sought to fill the gap left by the absence of ‘left-wing mass media’. It has remained true to its activist roots, mobilising readers against selected ‘enemies’. In recent years it has heavily criticised, for example, current Prime Minister Andy Burnham – portrayed as the ‘acceptable face’ of the ruling elite – as well as Israel, described in a recent article as a ‘genocidal land-grabbing project’.
According to Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, such account closures in the UK are neither the first of their kind nor isolated. In 2020, for example, Barclays closed two accounts held by the Christian charity Core Issues Trust after the LGBT community targeted it over its views on conversion therapy. But the best-known case dates from 2023, when Coutts ceased providing services to politician Nigel Farage. An investigation into that case revealed that, although the account was not closed directly because of his political views, documents showed the bank had complaints about his ‘xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views’ and considered them ‘at odds with our stance’.
Of course banks insist account closures are never politically motivated. Yet people and organisations whose views are strikingly similar have repeatedly been left without bank accounts. “Censorship by debanking has not just a financial cost, nor just a democratic cost, but a significant human cost too. That’s why it’s so powerful. Few people are so determined to express their most unpopular opinions that they will risk their livelihoods to do so,” writes Carlo.
Full Circle: Car Manufacturers Address EV Concerns With Petrol Engines
Car makers plan to launch a new type of extended-range electric vehicle on the US market, trying to solve Americans’ worries that EV batteries might run out of power. The approach is straightforward: an electric car gets a petrol engine that charges the battery when needed, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Hyundai, Ford and Jeep (via Stellantis) intend to introduce these plug-in extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs). They are fully electric cars fitted with a petrol-powered generator that recharges the battery as required. Drivers therefore avoid being stranded with a flat battery if there’s only a petrol station nearby. Hyundai has announced that its next-generation Santa Fe SUV will offer an EREV version in 2027 with around 600 miles of range. Ford has said it will revive the F-150 Lightning as an EREV after ending production of the pure-electric version last December because it was unprofitable.
Micky Bly, Stellantis’s head of powertrains, sees this as a workable solution and aims to bring the Jeep Grand Wagoneer EREV to the US market by the end of this year or early next year. The Ram 1500 REV will follow, pairing a large battery with a V6 petrol engine for up to 690 miles of range - more than twice that of a typical US electric car. Bly notes that the industry had rushed toward fully electric vehicles to meet regulations, but EREVs could provide a compromise that works for both regulators and customers.
EREVs differ from existing plug-in hybrids, which use a battery mainly for short electric range. An EREV is primarily an electric car; the petrol engine acts solely as a generator. Driving feel remains similar to a pure EV, including strong acceleration, even while the generator charges the battery. However, motoring experts believe it is likely that an EREV will cost more than an equivalent petrol-powered vehicle, and perhaps even more than a fully electric vehicle. The technology also adds complexity and will require fresh customer education, so it remains an open question whether customers will embrace this new and complex, albeit intriguing, technology.
The industry has already scaled back ambitions for a predominantly electric market by the 2030s. Higher prices and range anxiety - largely tied to charging infrastructure - deter many buyers. In theory, EREVs should ease range and charging concerns, especially for larger vehicles that need big batteries and long charge times. In any case, car manufacturers are hopeful that customers will not reject electric vehicles with extended range, although they have expressed uncertainty as to whether consumers are willing to pay more for them.
When will they finally give up on EVs?
They have been pushed, promoted and subsidized for years and still few people want them.